In today's Washington Post, Tim Craig has a pessimistic analysis of the prospects for a transportation breakthrough in Virginia this year. Unfortunately, I can't see any reason to disagree with this:
Has the window for addressing transportation closed?The transportation deal, designed to raise $1.1 billion annually for highway and mass transit projects, might have been a once-in-a-decade opportunity for a bipartisan compromise in a state traditionally resistant to taxes and change.
Craig then proceeds to explain how the changing political dynamics in Richmond make the incentive/disincentive balance highly unfavorable to a compromise on transportation being reached. Here's the root of the problem:
There is little reason for Senate Democrats to compromise. If they do, they run the risk of being held responsible for another quick-fix solution, such as the failed and politically unpopular abusive-driving fees.House and Senate Republicans are understandably wary of giving in to the Senate Democrats' proposal for a statewide tax increase.
The biggest threat to most House Republicans' reelection chances next year won't come from a Democrat. With all but a few Republican delegates in safe seats, the real campaign could come in the form of a primary challenge from an antitax conservative.
[...]
Given that dynamic, Howell might find it a lot harder this year to marshal his caucus around another tax increase to solve transportation problems, especially when people downstate perceive the problems as unique to Northern Virginia.
Howell also might realize that all three Republican delegates from Fairfax County, David B. Albo, Timothy D. Hugo and Thomas Davis Rust, could lose next year and the GOP would still have a working majority in the House.
The main question at this point is whether someone with the power and ability to make a difference will put aside the never-ending quest for partisan advantage and work for the betterment of Virginia as a whole. But, as Craig points out, John Warner -- "the one statewide politician respected by both Democrats and Republicans" -- is retiring at the end of the year. And "[Sen. Jim] Webb has shown little inclination to get involved in big Richmond-centric issues."
All of which leaves us exactly where we were before Gov. Kaine was elected governor in 2005: in transportation gridlock, with the situation getting worse by the year. As far as I can tell, barring an (extremely unlikely) landslide by Democrats in the 2009 House of Delegates races, combined with a Democratic victory for Governor, this gridlock is likely to continue indefinitely. The winners in this? Nobody, really, except perhaps Bill Howell and other incumbents in "safe seats." The losers? Pretty much all regular Virginians, who will suffer the consequences of our "leaders'" complete inability to deal with the crucial issue of transportation. Sad.
1) NoVa and Norfolk area local officials agree to accept some taxing authority for local transportation. Maybe put in a monetary ceiling and/or revenue sources to limit political attacks on the local officials.
2) A scaled back version (e.g., somewhat smaller fines) of the abuser driver fees is implemented that covers out-of-state drivers as well as Va. drivers.
3) A smaller increase in the gas tax than proposed by the Senate Dems.
I'm putting on my helmet now .......
I agree 100% with your three points.
4) Lock up all this revenue so it can only be spent on transportation projects
Fairax County tried to pull a fast one just recently and everyone knows the state is notorious for spending transportation dollars in other areas
5) To ensure this crisis does not occur again strengthen growth controls and allow rezonings to be overturned based on inadequate transportation infrastructure requiremenets. HB 3202 actually has some good language about this already
I welcome other suggestions. In the end, I hope that some politician will steal our list to create "his/her" proposal.
1. Tough one. We had a discussion last week (or the week before) on RK about whether road funding was a state issue or a local issue. You could reasonably argue both ways. I lean toward funding the roads as a common good and that we shouldn't start bean counting about where this money came from. However, in the spirit of compromise, I'd be on board with some sort of split where state taxes are increased (to pay about 2/3 the cost) and local NOVA/HR taxes are increased to pay the rest.
2. Completely disagree. This was a gimmick from the beginning and would still be a gimmick with a few rough edges smoothed out. Tying our transportation funding to illegal behavior is not how a budget should be built. You could argue that with lower fees people's bad driving wouldn't change so that revenue could be counted on long term, but that goes against the very concept of traffic laws. They aren't there to make money (although many governments sadly do use them as such) and codifying them as revenue generators is a bad idea.
3. It'll be tough to shrink the Senate proposal - Saslaw was only asking for a 1 cent increase per year! IMO the tax should be raised 10 cents on the spot - so a compromise would be raising it 5 right now. But we all know how much my opinion will count in the GA. This idea is certainly the right direction - a statewide tax must be raised somewhere.
4. Absolutely.
5. Great as well.
1. A split could be a good approach. Maybe 50/50 would help sell it "downstate" with the people who think our roads aren't important to them [NOTE: I am not disagreeing with your logic that the state should pay more, I'm just trying to see if we can get some money before 2011 -- I almost typed in 2111 by mistake.]
2. I agree. It's a gimmick but a lot of people feel that fines do affect behavior. Also, what's the harm? We have fines already and raising them a little makes everyone think (a) I won't have to pay and (b) the bad drivers will pay. More importantly, the out-of-staters must pay or it just won't fly.
3. I also agree that it is tough to cut a 1 cent increase per year. But have you ever been in a store and seen how many items are priced $2.49 or $1.99? Lower the gas tax increase below 1 cent per year, and it becomes pretty tough to fight.
Please bear in mind, my starting premise is that the only way to get something passed is to find something that is hated by everyone. I was not going for logic, fairness or the like. If logic were the criteria, I would just do the gas tax.
I want to get some transportation money now!!!
You could have this money go into the Literacy Fund, but then you would be relying on state legislators to take money out of education and put it into transportation in order to use that money. And I think that is unlikely to happen.
Also, "abuser fees" don't sound like a registration fee to me. Can you explain your argument?
I agree that the GA will not take money out of an education lockbox to put it in transportation.
The court must assess the fee if convicted, unlike fines which are generally variable up to a maximum and judges can decide on how much. For example, say you are convicted of Reckless Driving, General Rule, a Class 1 Misdemeanor. Normally, the punishment is up to 12 months in jail and/or up to a $2,500 fine. Under the Civil Remedial Fees, regardless what the judge sets as your punishment, you must also pay the non-variable fee of $1,050 payable in three installments of $350 (the first payable to the courts, the second and third payable to the DMV).
If the fee is not paid, the penalty is that your license is suspended. So, in effect, it is a license fee. Out of state drivers are licensed in a different state and could not be forced to pay a license fee in Virginia (a toll or fine sure).
The way it was structured, it could not be applied to out-of-state drivers. As an alternative, you could up the fine associated with misdemeanors, but then it is up to the judge on how much to assess unless we want to start setting mandatory minimums. On top of that fines go into the Literary Fund according to Article 8, Section 8 of the Virginia Constitution:
The General Assembly shall set apart as a permanent and perpetual school fund the present Literary Fund; the proceeds of all public lands donated by Congress for free public school purposes, of all escheated property, of all waste and unappropriated lands, of all property accruing to the Commonwealth by forfeiture except as hereinafter provided, of all fines collected for offenses committed against the Commonwealth, and of the annual interest on the Literary Fund; and such other sums as the General Assembly may appropriate. But so long as the principal of the Fund totals as much as eighty million dollars, the General Assembly may set aside all or any part of additional moneys received into its principal for public school purposes, including the teachers retirement fund.
The idea of a mandatory fee for driving infractions was rejected. And the legislature repealed the provisions by popular demand. So, I don't see how you go back to an abusive driver fee or how you modify it in some way that makes it acceptable to those who rejected it.
I don't think that is how it works. First, many states have reciprocity so that, if you don't pay, you lose your license in those states. Second, for the states where there is no reciprocity, you get a ride down to the jailhouse/courthouse and you sit there until you do pay.
Out-of-staters don't get a free ride.
As for "popular demand," most of it was based upon the fact that Virginians paid and out-of-staters did not. If it were just the amount of the fines, I doubt the "popular demand" would be there.
Basically, it is structuring the driver's license fee based on your driving record. So, if you are a good driver, you pay only $35 (or whatever the driver's license fee is). But if you are bad driver, you pay thousands of dollars for a driver's license. If you are an out-of-state driver who is convicted of reckless driving, you have to pay whatever fine the judge sets. But you don't have to pay the Civil Remedial Fee because it is a license fee and you are not licensed in Virginia, you're licensed in some other state.
On item one, I don't see how you can successfully argue that transportation is a local issue. But if we want to push the burden onto localities, I want some reciprocity. And in that respect, I would want the state to cut education funding and shift more of that on localities. I would want the GA to delegate more of its taxation authority to localities too. I'm fine with not sharing the cost of transportation as long as I don't have to subsidize the cost of education for the rest of the state. Heck! We can go all the way down the Republican's path to its conclusion: no state revenues, no state spending, and no state government.
With all but a few Republican delegates in safe seats, the real campaign could come in the form of a primary challenge from an antitax conservative.
While ending gerrymandering and creating sensible compact, community-centric districts would not solve all problems, nor would it necessarily create "unsafe" seats, there is no doubt that it would make delegate races more competitive and open, and begin to set up situations where communities with common interests might actually see those interests addressed.
How to get non-partisan re-districting, inasmuch as a bill to do just that recently failed in the Republican-dominated House of Delegates? Public scorn, ridicule, and anger? National law applying to federal Congressional Districts, which might set a standard? National law containing a requirement to create non-partisan re-districting for state legislatures in order to receive federal money for purchasing reliable, hacker-proof electronic voting machines?